User talk:69.90.55.168: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:59, 26 November 2009

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEVAR!!!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. SMC (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck, I didn't attack anyone personally, just the anti-human Al Whore alarmists in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk • contribs)

Alarmists? Have you taken a moment to actually look at the state of the world's climate? Go on, look at it. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make me laugh. Yes there's a warming trend, but no, it's not anthropogenic. Massive warming occured only after 1900 according to Mann et al's hockeystick graph, while global carbon level only began to really soar 1950 or thereabouts. One: does carbon take that long to work (the Industrial Revolution was about 1780 I think, and according to the same graph there was a cooling trend UP TO 1900)? And two, the carbon levels spiked AFTER the warming, refuting the theory that the warming trend is anthropogenic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk • contribs)

As it happens, I agree with the IP editor on the topic of human-induced climate change (not their way of expressing their opinion). There's enough fishy happenings with scientists being misquoted, scientists being encouraged to "sex it [the claims of human-induced climate change] up", academics who were either opposed to or had expressed no opinion of the theory being bumped off academic review panels (such that only those in favour of the theory get published), and some actual scientific data contradicting the theory, for me to be one of those horrible human-induced climate change skeptics ;) Having said that, we all have our opinions here and each of those should be respected. Those opinions just have to be expressed in the right way. SMC (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is real. Those who don't, are a loud, lunatic fringe, almost always found to be supported in someway by fossil fuel lobbies and other special interests. In other words, they are mostly unscientific, politically-driven, propaganda machines who are trying to push their POV, like the little IP below. Viriditas(talk) 11:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the major errors alarmists make: consensus does not not nessecarily mean truth. 700 years ago the Earth was flat, was it not? And obviously your argument is refuted by this new hacking, which reveals the biased POV of many SCIENTISTS. I also hate when brave individuals like us are accused of being on the payroll of that bigoted moronic Faux News or oil lobbies. Because objective folk like us are only looking at the evidence, not basing our arguments on EMOTIONAL anti-human hippy sentiment.

The Earth has been known to be spherical since at least the 6th century BC, and probably far before that time. As for the "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident", it is a huge distraction that says absolutely nothing about climate change science, but rather serves to take attention away from the upcoming summit. It's a tired old shenanigan, often referred to as dirty tricks, and it's been done, many times before. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the Greeks knew the earth to be spherical. However, much of Greek learning was lost, obviously as the people of Columbus' time feared sailing over the edge. What the hacking incident does expose is the biased POVs of scientists, something which should have shaken your faith in your scientist-gods, were you not a follower of Al Gore's religion (and all religion requires doublethink).

With inane, childish comments like that, you are your own worst enemy. I'm glad you brought up religion. Do you find it interesting that in the U.S. the people who believe in global warming skepticism the most tend to be highly religious?[1] Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's the natural tendency of religious fucks (and for humans in general) to adopt positions counter to those of their opponents, the global-warming believing liberals, whom they believe are godless. So if you are at odds with someone about one issue, you tend to adopt positions that would seem to be against the beliefs of the sterotype of your opponent. Essentially, you are again attempting to compare me to Faux News and right-wing christians.

That's an interesting response, but it isn't true in this case. Apparently, these people believe that a concern with the environment borders on "paganism" and since (in their opinion) scientists are atheists, they can't be trusted. They also believe that we should not give a damn about the Earth, as Jesus is coming back to rapture the believers and leave everyone else down here to suffer. Now, mind you, this strange worldview is not representative of all Christians. In fact, there are many Christians who align themselves with the scientific assessment on global warming. But, as I said previously, it's the same vocal, lunatic fringe who are getting air time. What is so strange about this, is that political scientists say the data shows that the U.S. is a nation of moderates, whereas the U.S. media portrays its people as a nation of extremists. This is because (and I'm repeating myself from an ANI thread) political power in the U.S. moves public opinion by pushing people to one side or the other. This polarization is part of our current political system, and functions at every level on every issue. People who are in the center are usually not given the same air time by the media as those who are on the left or the right. Special interests control public opinion by framing the topical debates as zero-sum, even though most people have moved on from that position and no longer play the game that way. As a Canadian, you may be in a better position to understand the U.S. than most Americans. It is often said, that you cannot understand yourself within your own culture; You must see yourself through the eyes of others. But the feedback that we get from the U.S. media, is often an empty echo from one polarized side or the other, rather than actual viewpoints and perspectives about the world from the world at large. What am I saying? I am saying that your worldview on climate change could open up a bit by examining the evidence from around the world rather than limiting yourself to one location in time. The response to the climate dataset has been overwhelming, and there is a consensus that something must be done. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you already know my opinion on "consensus". I can see you're very smart on political matters, but politics is only one side of the equation (there's politics and then there's the truth, and the former has nothing to do with the latter). You say I limit myself to one point in time? That's hardly true, anyone who looks at paleoclimate records can see that the earth has been much hotter and colder in the past. In fact, these graphs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png, both illustrate my point that we are actually in a rather cool era, and show that carbon concentration and temperature (indicated by delta 18-O, less of which indicates more glaciers) have little if any correlation with eachother. And of course my analysis of the hockeystick graph of more recent climate change is written above.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. Supporting opinions don't me too much, really (provided they're not trying to nix a country's economy, like my country's government..); I'm certainly not going to get into some kind of Wikifight over it, which I know would end badly for both parties. Instead, I'll leave you to the "little IP below" ;P SMC (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much of Australia's economy relies on coal exports? Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's our largest, worth something like AUD$22.5 billion. It doesn't really stop there though, because then there's the tax on the population to consider - as high as $1600, and that's scaled based on your wealth, not your carbon output, essentially supporting the fact that the tax is completely irrelevant as a carbon emissions deterrent, and is simply an attempt to "punish" the wealthy, just as past Labor governments have tried to do. Anyway, there's a fair amount of opposition here now that people are finally realising what they're risking based on a theory that much of the population only half believes in. SMC (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the demographic of the half that doesn't believe it? Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you make the same flawed argument: not all of us are on the payroll of fossil fuels. I for one actually LIKE alternative energies, and on my life I swear that I have no commercial links to fossil fuels (hell I'm still just a student). And most of my country Canada's economy comes from mining (uranium, copper, gold), logging, and agriculture, not fossil fuels (except in Alberta). Oh, but you probably have a problem with logging and nuclear energy too, don't you, hippy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk • contribs)

The problem isn't with any one thing, it's how we use it. No thing is, in and of itself "bad". What I have a problem with is your childish, emotional rhetoric. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you accuse me of being emotional when you and your ilk make emotional "we're killing the planet!!!!1" arguments all the time.

I don't believe I've ever said any such thing. BTW, just so you know, for future reference, whenever anyone says, "you and your ilk", that means you've automatically lost the argument and you're required to pour a chocolate milkshake on your head. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You critisize my wording of things instead of arguing the facts. Typical tact of arrogant people who are afraid to deal with actual facts and instead choose to mock their opponent. I have not seen a single attempt to use hard data on climate change against me, rather attempts to try and peg me down as some kind of right-wing nutjob. Instead of countering my interpretation of the data, which is right above this argument we're having now, you chose to spout fallacious "consensus" arguments, as if that was that. It is becomming increasingly obvious to me that you haven't the intelligence to counter what I say. My arguments may contain ad hominem attacks but they also offer substance. If you persist in lame attempts to mock me instead of offering data (and I mean hard climate data, not data that attempts to link denialism with religion) of your own then you've proven yourself to have little knowledge of the subject.

The thing is, Wikipedia is used to write articles, and the talk page is applied towards this purpose. Anything else, doesn't belong there. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, sorry, I do tend to overboard on expressing my opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should try expressing less opinion and more facts. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should do the same. All I've seen from you is opinions and citing opinions.

Signing talk page posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. SMC (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 14:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

69.90.55.168 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You could have at least left a concrete reason for this. Yeah I said some things on the disscussion page of that hacking article, but that was like a one-time thing, and I believe I have no record of vandalizing articles. Additionally, SMC already warned me against further edits similar to the one on the disscussion page, and I have not made similar edits since. This is completely unjustified.

Decline reason:

As you put it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Allow me to clarify. You were blocked for disruptive editing and making personal attacks. TNXMan 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :::::::::: No. It's the natural tendency of religious fucks (and for humans in general) to adopt positions counter to those of their opponents, the global-warming believing liberals, whom they believe are godless. So if you are at odds with someone about one issue, you tend to adopt positions that would seem to be against the beliefs of the sterotype of your opponent. Essentially, you are again attempting to compare me to Faux News and right-wing christians.
 :::::::::::That's an interesting response, but it isn't true in this case.  Apparently, these people believe that a concern with the environment borders on "paganism" and since (in their opinion) scientists are atheists, they can't be trusted.  They also believe that we should not give a damn about the Earth, as Jesus is coming back to rapture the believers and leave everyone else down here to suffer.  Now, mind you, this strange worldview is not representative of all Christians.  In fact, there are many Christians who align themselves with the scientific assessment on global warming.  But, as I said previously, it's the same vocal, lunatic fringe who are getting air time.  What is so strange about this, is that political scientists say the data shows that the U.S. is a nation of moderates, whereas the U.S. media portrays its people as a nation of extremists.  This is because (and I'm repeating myself from an ANI thread) political power in the U.S. ''moves'' public opinion by pushing people to one side or the other.  This polarization is part of our current political system, and functions at every level on every issue. People who are in the center are usually not given the same air time by the media as those who are on the left or the right.  Special interests control public opinion by framing the topical debates as zero-sum, even though most people have moved on from that position and no longer play the game that way.  As a Canadian, you may be in a better position to understand the U.S. than most Americans.  It is often said, that you cannot understand yourself within your own culture; You must see yourself through the eyes of others.  But the feedback that we get from the U.S. media, is often an empty echo from one polarized side or the other, rather than actual viewpoints and perspectives about the world ''from'' the world at large.  What am I saying?  I am saying that your worldview on climate change could open up a bit by examining the evidence from around the world rather than limiting yourself to one location in time.  The response to the climate dataset has been overwhelming, and there is a consensus that something must be done. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Well, you already know my opinion on "consensus". I can see you're very smart on political matters, but politics is only one side of the equation (there's politics and then there's the truth, and the former has nothing to do with the latter). You say I limit myself to one point in time? That's hardly true, anyone who looks at paleoclimate records can see that the earth has been much hotter and colder in the past. In fact, these graphs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png, both illustrate my point that we are actually in a rather cool era, and show that carbon concentration and temperature (indicated by delta 18-O, less of which indicates more glaciers) have little if any correlation with eachother. And of course my analysis of the hockeystick graph of more recent climate change is written above.
 :::::: Maybe you're right, maybe not. Supporting opinions don't me too much, really (provided they're not trying to [[Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme|nix a country's economy]], like [[Australia|my country's government..]]); I'm certainly not going to get into some kind of Wikifight over it, which I know would end badly for both parties. Instead, I'll leave you to the "little IP below" ;P [[User:SMC|SMC]] ([[User talk:SMC|talk]]) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)